• ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    The core issue is that you only have 2 real options in america, third parties may as well not exist.

    There’s false assumptions necessary to reach this conclusion. Typically the false assumption is that the role of a third party is to win. The root cause of making this assumption is often that the scope of evaluation has been limited to one term or cycle.

    • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      I’m not convinced that voting for a third party has any positive effect, in one election cycle or over longer time. But I’m open to hearing your perspective.

      • ReadMoreBooks@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        24 minutes ago

        The false assumption that most make is that one cycle doesn’t effect the next.

        However, if a third party garners just 5% of the general election vote for POTUS then their platform and higher quality candidate will be on every ballot in the next cycle.

        If there’s a third choice on every ballot then the the third party platform places tremendous and immediate pressure upon the platforms of the two major parties. The third party doesn’t actually win unless the other refuse to compromise. Long term, the continued threat is of greater value than a subsequent victory.

        But, the electoral scheme doesn’t work unless leftists trust leftists to determine the collective risk of voting third party for the states they reside in. Even Jacobin failed to trust twice.

        Things are pretty fucked. Electoral means are slow. I tend to advocate for boycott, strike, and riot (encompassing a wide scope of wisely breaking laws).